Should Casey Anthony be forced to talk?

Defense may seek closed record presentation outside the public eye

December 7, 2011|By Anthony Colarossi, Orlando Sentinel

Attorneys for Casey Anthony and Zenaida Gonzalez are gearing up for their latest legal battle in court on Thursday.

The legal teams are scheduled to argue the issue of whether Anthony should be made to fully answer questions during a deposition. Thursday's hearing is part of the civil defamation lawsuit Gonzalez filed against Anthony.

During her Oct. 8, deposition, Anthony, 25, repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination through her civil attorney Charles Greene. Her team says her ongoing appeal of convictions for lying to law enforcement allows her to claim the Fifth.

But Gonzalez's legal team has filed a motion with the court to compel Anthony to answer its questions completely. Many of the questions involve the stories Anthony told family, friends and law enforcement soon after the discovery of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee's disappearance in the summer of 2008.

Anthony claimed at the time that a nanny named Zenaida Gonzalez has abducted the child. This claim was later proved to be a lie. And during Anthony's criminal case earlier this year, her criminal defense attorney stated that Caylee died in a drowning in the family's pool.

"The entire thrust of the deposition – and the plaintiff's core contention in this case – is that Ms. Anthony's statements to law enforcement were false," Greene noted in his most recent written response to the effort to get his client to answer questions.

He argues that her Fifth Amendment rights are maintained "during the pendency of a direct appeal challenging the conviction."

"All of the questions posed by [Gonzalez] required some form or response that might possibly be incriminating or otherwise provide a link in the chain of evidence related to the criminal convictions currently on appeal, or other charges that might be brought," Greene wrote.

Questions concerning whether Casey Anthony "made up" a person named Zenaida Gonzalez could be more problematic, the defense claims.

Such questions "could possibly incriminate Ms. Anthony because they could lead to answers which could arguably show that Ms. Anthony fabricated a story about the alleged nanny she identified."

Further, any questions showing Caylee was not kidnapped, was dead and was not missing on July 15, 2008, could also incriminate Anthony, her team argues. The child's remains were found in a wooded area in December 2008 not far from the Anthony home.

If Judge Munyon decides the "incriminating nature" of the questions posed at Anthony's deposition "are not evident when compared to the indictment and her statement to law enforcement," her legal team is asking to make a presentation to the court outside of the public view, according to Greene's motion.

Greene says if Anthony "were required to publicly disclose why she fears the questions posed to her could be incriminating, she would surrender the very protections, which the Fifth Amendment privilege was designed to protect."

The so-called "in camera" – or private, in chambers -- session would be a "closed record," if the defense team got its way. Anthony's defense team declined to elaborate today on this aspect of its filing, choosing to let the court papers speak for themselves.

In the filing, Greene also explained why Casey did not invoke the Fifth herself, but relied on her lawyer to do that.

"Given the blinding media glare this case has already received, the vision of Ms. Anthony asserting the Fifth Amendment over and again would have been broadcast across this state and country," Greene said.

This, he added, would have "further tainted the prospective jury pool."

Attorneys for Gonzalez, meanwhile, argued in their earlier motion "there is not substantial justification for Anthony's conduct in refusing to answer the questions posed at deposition."

They also argue that "the reason the defendant was using Zenaida Gonzalez is highly relevant" to their case.

"What act was she covering up by making up the story about Zenaida Gonzalez is critical to the jury's determination as to reprehensibility, regarding entitlement to punitive damages," her lawyers argue.

The legal team, which includes John Morgan, John Dill and Keith Mitnik, insists there is no pending appeal "that would subject her to further incrimination or punishment."

"She should be required to comply with discovery as would any other party in a civil lawsuit," they maintain. "She can no longer hide behind the Fifth Amendment to thwart discovery in this matter and to stonewall civil justice."

On another Casey Anthony front, the state Justice Administrative Commission confirmed that Anthony's criminal defense team billed the state $219,693.81 since she was declared indigent in March 2010. Of that amount, the state has paid $176,255.58 for her criminal defense, according to the JAC numbers.

That's a payout of roughly 80 percent of her defense's total billings. The billings not paid out were either rejected, reflected duplicate billings or lacked supporting documentation, a JAC spokeswoman said.

In late July, soon after her first-degree murder trial was over, the defense had billed $147,018 for things like expert witnesses, mental-health evaluations and court-reporting services. At that time, the state had paid out $118,847 of those expenses

Since that time, in the months after the sensational trial, the state has paid out an additional $57,408.58 for Anthony's criminal defense.

It's not clear how the legal team defending Anthony against the two civil cases filed against her -- including the Gonzalez suit -- is being funded.